Matrix Games Forums

Maybe you've seen this before.

Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of this.

Two B-25s hammer a maru in the distance.

The ship.

They may have been the enemy but I pity these guys.

Agreed. Still homo sapiens and it would hurt to say the least[;)]

Was she sunk in this attack?

But wait...everyone know allied level bombers never actually hit anything. Any hits in witp are purely fictitous and unhistorical. Those pictures must be doctored. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

They may have been the enemy but I pity these guys.

I don't.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

But wait...everyone know allied level bombers never actually hit anything. Any hits in witp are purely fictitous and unhistorical. Those pictures must be doctored. [;)]

Everyone knows that in WitP level bombers are way too dangerous - especially at 1000 feet - and this guy is even way below that.

I don't think the gripe is with two engine bombers as much as it is with 4 engine bombers.

Great photos [X(]
 
Where do they come from or where did you get from?

Was she sunk in this attack?

Damaged and ran aground on a reef - then finished off. The crew attempted to get ashore by swimming in their life jackets and a life boat. They were then repeatedly strafed by the B-25's (8 .50 cal MG's in the nose) until "the water was red with blood." The photos of the floating bodies is not as clear.

Any opinions on this - Is this a war crime?

But wait...everyone know allied level bombers never actually hit anything. Any hits in witp are purely fictitous and unhistorical. Those pictures must be doctored.

These boys were skip bombing. WitP manual says 100 feet altitude. Think the pilots are following the rules? [:)]

Where do they come from or where did you get from?

Warpath Across the Pacific: The Illustrated History of the 345th Bombardment Group During World War II by Lawrence Hickey. Third Edition, 1989, International Research and Publishing Company.

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Any opinions on this - Is this a war crime?

Not in my book. They could have surrendered the ship (ships and U boats have surrendered before). Moreover, if they beached at an enemy held island, they would have been recirculated and found their way back to fighting ships.

Do I think it is wrong? Yes, they were defenceless. But they were still enemy combatants, ones that when found would have been put back into service.'

Now, if they had beached on an American held island, then yes, it might be a crime (or at least a negative act).

But in reality, how is machinegunning swimming sailors (who have no defence) any more of a crime than machinegunning troop trains or troops in trucks. In each case they all have no defense.

The objective of war is to remove, destroy, or neutralize the warmaking ability of the enemy. This includes men and machines.

Do I feel sorry for them? In a way. They are human beings. But also remember that it is these same kinds of sailors that strafed U.S. sailors, refused to rescue them after battles, or in at least one case, executed a rescued sailor after a battle, simply because the Japanese were defeated (Midway).

In a post WW2 world, it is ok to feel sorry for them. But when you are fighting them, you need to remember they are the enemy. Also remember that you (as an Allied officer/soldier/pilot/sailor) might stay your weapon, but your foe usually wouldn't. That's not an anti-Japanese statement, but knowing from family experience what happens to POWs in Japan (my Grandmother's cousin was captured at the fall of Corrigedor.... the family thought he died in captivity. Turns out the Japanese just cut his toungue out and his fingers off, and he was not able to identify himself for repatriation. Or so the family story goes...), I don't feel to sorry for them. Or rather, not as sorry for them as I would had the harsh realities of their acts on Americans been so 'close to home.' At least the machinegun is quick, compared to a sword, torture, or starvation.

In either case, war is a terrible thing in the end.

It probably is a crime, according to some convention somewhere. Along the same lines as differentiating between shooting at paratroopers in their chutes (which is okay) and shooting at aircrew which have bailed out (a big no-no).

But hey, that's what total war is: you destroy the enemy wherever you find him.

The whole thing to me is crazy...  to say that killing a man in one way is fine, in another way is a crime.
 
I do feel sorry for them, actually. I just also try to look at it from a historical perspective when "back judging". 20-30 lives on a subchaser was probably considered to be a better bet than 70 or so on a US submarine.
 
It is still a rotten deal though.
 
Of course, if we want to get real technical, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 makes all war a crime.
 
Hmmm.... I guess it is a war crime. From the 1949 Geneva Convention: Chapter 1 of the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949.:
"[font="courier new"]Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:[/font]
 
[font="courier new"](1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;[/font]
[font="courier new"][/font] 
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Later it uses the words shipwrecked quite often. So I guess technically then, it is a crime.[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"][/font] 
[font="microsoft sans serif"]But, then, if sailors are on a ship that is placed hors de combat (out of combat), then isn't continuing to engage that ship a crime? I'm thinking the Bismark after all 4 turrets were knocked out. It, and thus it's crew, were out of action, yet the Home Fleet continued to batter her. It makes you wonder.....[/font]

It´s a CRIME WAR, in capitals

Hmmm.... I guess it is a war crime. From the 1949 Geneva Convention: Chapter 1 of the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949.:

It wouldn't be under that statute as it hadn't been enacted at the time of the action.

The object in war is to kill the enemy's combatants. The question is at what point does an enemy cease being a combatant? A few words on a few sheets of paper can't begin to cover all the situations that may arise.

Is this particular action a crime? No, I don't think it is a criminal act. But it would be close to it. This is in the heat of the moment. I look at these survivors being similar to a soldier who is shot on the battlefield after he dropped his weapon and turned to run. He was still a combatant at this point. If he had tried to surrender it would have been a different story. It is a very fine line, one that can never be clearly defined.

I do believe that Mush Morton's (USS Wahoo) machine gunning of Japanese survivors in several lifeboats after he had sunk their ship was a crime. It was a cold blooded, deliberate act that took place nearly 30 minutes later and can not be attributed to the heat of the moment. Even his XO disagreed with the action. His reasoning was that they could have been rescued by Japanese forces so better to kill them now than have to do it later. He also later claimed that one of the survivors had fired at the sub so he considered them armed. Its true that they could have been rescued by the Japanese but prisoners can also be liberated so why not shoot them before it happens?

I compare Morton's action with Joachim Peiper's at Malmedy. He also had no means to take captured US soldiers with him so he killed them. Several members of Peiper's Wafen-SS unit were sentenced to death after the war. Why was Morton's action any different?

There is no such thing as a humane war. I can understand (but not condone) a soldier's or sailor's emotions getting the best of him in the heat of combat that enables him to commit an act for which he, in a saner moment, never would have performed. What I can't understand is the cold, calculated, deliberate murder of people who have no means to resist.

Anyways, off my high horse. I know many people will have differing opinions and that is fine. We all approach it from a different perspective.

Chez

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

But wait...everyone know allied level bombers never actually hit anything. Any hits in witp are purely fictitous and unhistorical. Those pictures must be doctored. [;)]

Yes those pictures are definetely doctored! The plane is missing two engines!!! [X(][X(][X(] In my games those ship killers that come in at low level with impressive manouverability all have four engines... [8|]

The Pacific War was a race war, to some extent. Both sides saw the other as something less than human...

Actually, I don't believe the Japanese Empire ever signed most of the aggreements that would have made it Legally a "War Crime", and they had certainly violated all of them during the "China Incident".  So there is reason to doubt they enjoyed any of the "protections" of said agreements.  So a good team of lawyers would probably get the Americans off on those charges.
 
In reality, all those aggreements were "tit for tat" understandings that if you treat our people nicely, we will do the same to yours.  Attempts to restore some of the "niceties" of 18th Century warfare to the "total war" concept that had made things needlessly "beastly".  There was also supposed to be no bombing of civilians..., but try telling that to the folks in Chungking, Nanking, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, and London - or those who suffered "massive retalliation" in Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Osaka, and Hiroshima.  Or all those merchant sailors on both sides who suffered the effects of "unrestricted submarine warfare" - also illegal under the "Agreements".
 
In reality, those Treaties were only valid insofar as both sides were prepared to uphold them.  They helped alleviate SOME suffering, mainly because both sides saw propaganda value in going along with certain provisions.  But neither side was going to "tie there own hands" unless they were sure the other was willing to go along.  The REAL REASON the Germans never made use of "Nerve Gas" (on which they had a monopoly) was that they believed the US Pesticide Industry must have it as well, and they KNEW that Churchill wouldn't hesitate a minute to have Bomber Command retaliate with more conventional gasses on German Cities (for which they were totally unprepared).  MAD may be a stupid sounding principle for international relations......, but it does have the advantage of being a successfull one.